losing our natural heritage - environment north carolina€¦ · 12 losing our natural heritage:...

Environment North CarolinaResearch & Policy Center

April 2007

Losing OurNatural Heritage:Development and Open Space Lossin North Carolina

Elizabeth Ouzts

Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center

April 2007

Losing OurNatural Heritage:Development and Open Space Lossin North Carolina

Acknowledgments

Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center gratefully acknowledges BenHitchings, Morrisville Planning Director, Edgar Miller of the Conservation Trust for NorthCarolina, and Jennifer Dempsey and Gerry Cohn of the American Farmland Trust for peerreview of the initial edition of this report.

Special thanks to Dan Good of the Natural Resource Conservation Service for providinginformation and guidance.

Many thanks to David Wright, Environment North Carolina Stanback Intern, for acquir-ing new data and performing the calculations necessary to produce this 2007 report, and toJackie Helvey for supplying photos.

This report was made possible by generous grants from Fred Stanback, the Beldon Fund,and the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The views expressed in thisreport are those of the authors and do not necessarily express the views of our funders.

© 2007 Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center

Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Centerwww.EnvironmentNorthCarolina.org/center112 S. Blount Street, Suite 102Raleigh, NC 27601(919) 833-0015

Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic DesignCover photo: Jackie Helvey. Photos: p. 13 Egret, Jackie Helvey; p. 17 Chicory (detail), Michael Hudson; p.4 Joyce KilmerMemorial Forest, p.7 Swansboro, p. 9 Chimney Rock Park, , p. 19 Maggie Valley, p. 24 Wildflowers, courtesy of NorthCarolina Division of Tourism.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 7

Understanding the Data 9

Land Use Changes in North Carolina, 1987-2007 14The Piedmont 15The Coast 18The Mountains 19

Projected Land Use Changes, 2007-2027 20

Policy Findings 24

Appendices 25Appendix A: Data for Change in Developed Area 25by Study Area, 1987-2007Appendix B: Data for Loss of Open Space 26by Study Area, 1987-2007Appendix C: Ranks of Study Areas by Projected 27Open Space Loss 2007-20027

Endnotes 28

4 Losing Our Natural Heritage: Development and Open Space Loss in North Carolina

Executive Summary 5

Executive Summary

North Carolina’s signature woodlands,farmlands, and open spaces are dis-appearing at an alarming rate. If

these trends continue, the state’s treasurednatural areas will disappear as vast tracts ofland are developed into urban areas in thenext twenty years.

This report examines development ratesin North Carolina over the last twentyyears, and uses those results to make con-servative predictions about loss of croplandand forestland over the next twenty years.Among the report’s findings:

Between 2007 and 2027:

• North Carolina will lose nearly twomillion acres of forest land and crop-land.

• The Triangle will lose 37 percent of itsnatural areas; cropland will disappearaltogether.

• The Charlotte area will lose 30 percentof is natural areas, including nearly aquarter of its forest land, the highestrate of forest loss in the state.

Projected Increase in Developed Land, 2007-2027


• Developed area in the state willincrease by 38 percent, compared to a30 percent increase in population.

In the last twenty years, North Carolinahas lost 2.37 million acres of cropland andforest land, an estimated 325 acres every day.

In the last twenty years:

• Charlotte, the state’s largest metroarea, lost 25 percent of its total crop-land and forest land for a total of270,000 acres, the highest percentageloss in the state.

• The Triangle region saw 24 percent ofits cropland and forest land trans-formed. The region lost 283,000 acresof cropland and 123,000 acres offorestland.

• The Triad region (Greensboro, Win-ston-Salem, and High Point) lost 14

percent of its cropland and forest land,a total of 236,000 acres.

From 1987 to the present, developedland in the state has grown by 1.86 millionacres.

• The Triangle region has more thandoubled its developed acreage, adding327,000 acres.

• Rural counties in the Piedmont regionhave added an estimated 322,000 acresof development.

• The Charlotte area has added 321,000acres of developed land, an increase of88 percent.

Over the same period, population hasgrown by 40 percent- remarkably fast, butslowly in comparison to the growth of de-veloped acreage, which has increased 65percent.

Percent Loss of Forest and Crop Land, 1987-2007

Executive Summary 7

SolutionThe report’s projections for loss of naturalareas over the next twenty years are basedonly on the trends of the past. NorthCarolina’s leaders have the power to alterprojections for the future.

In 2006, the North Carolina GeneralAssembly established the Land and WaterConservation Study Commission to exam-ine ways to finance a significant increase infunding for the state’s existing land conser-vation programs—the Clean Water Man-agement Trust Fund, the Natural HeritageTrust Fund, the Parks and Recreation TrustFund, and the Agricultural Developmentand Farmland Preservation Trust Fund—as well as to fund new initiatives to capital-ize on economic opportunities associatedwith land conservation.

After numerous meetings and three pub-lic hearings, attended by more than 1000citizens, the Commission recommended$1 billion in additional funds over thenext five years—roughly 1 percent of thestate’s budget—for land conservationprograms.

This increase in funding, if approved bystate leaders, can ensure the protection ofadditional 260,000 acres of forests, farm-lands, trails, parks, gamelands, and othernatural areas, and more than 6000 miles ofriver and stream buffers across the state.The recommendations of the Land andWater Conservation Study Commission, ifadopted, would go a long way towards pro-tecting the state’s natural areas in the faceof rapid development.


Introduction

North Carolina is known for its beau-tiful natural areas. Our forests, wet-lands, and other natural areas re-

store our rivers and lakes. They providecrucial wildlife habitat and chances for rec-reation, and bolster a vibrant touristeconomy. Our farmlands sustain a way oflife for tens of thousands of families.

But rapid development across the stateis contaminating our rivers and streams, de-stroying fish and wildlife habitat, and mak-ing the state more susceptible to damagingfloods. What’s more, development threat-ens the future of some of the state’s best-known and best-loved green spaces.

Serenity PointThis southern tip of Topsail Island inPender County is home to native andthreatened plants and wildlife, including theLoggerhead Sea Turtle. One of the few un-spoiled beaches left along the state’s rapidlydeveloping coast, the 50-acre area that makesup Serenity Point attracts anglers and nature-lovers, and has inspired more than 1700citizens, along with the Coastal Land Trustof North Carolina, to “Save the Point.”

In November 2006, state officials

approved $1 million to protect The Pointfrom development. But more funds areneeded to permanently protect this trea-sured coastal area.1

Morrow MountainIn 2006, the Aluminum Company ofAmerica (Alcoa) announced plans to sellmuch of its land in the Uwharries, and gavethe state the chance to buy land adjacent toMorrow Mountain State Park. A popularspot for hikers, boaters and history buffs,the park would benefit from the additionof 1,400 acres along the Pee Dee River.State officials estimate they need $25 mil-lion to purchase the land in the Uwharries.

Chimney Rock ParkForged by Hickory Creek and the BroadRiver, Hickory Nut Gorge in WesternNorth Carolina provides home to rare wild-life and spectacular vistas. Today, theGorge’s Chimney Rock and Hickory NutFalls attract hikers, rock-climbers and bota-nists from the across the state and acrossthe globe.

In 2006, the owners of the privately-

Introduction 9

owned Chimney Rock Park announcedthey would put the 1,000 acre property onthe open market. State leaders scrambledto find funds to purchase the property. InJanuary of 2007, they announced an agree-

ment to add the land to its park system.But conservation groups have identifiedmore than 1,000 acres more of property inthe Hickory Nut Gorge area in need ofpermanent protection.2


Understanding the Data

This report uses the Natural ResourceConservation Service’s (NRCS) Natu-ral Resource Inventory (NRI) data to

document trends in North Carolina landuse over the last twenty years and to makepredictions for future trends over the nexttwenty years.

The NRI is a survey of land use nation-wide. The NRI was conducted on a five-year cycle during the period 1982 to 1997,but is now conducted annually. NRI datawere collected every five years for 800,000sample sites; annual NRI data collectionnow occurs at slightly less than 25 percentof these same sample sites. Thus, the an-nual NRI survey, with many fewer datapoints, does not serve the purpose of thisreport. Data from 1997 through 2027 areour own projections.

The survey categorizes land into one ofseveral land use types. From the survey, theNRCS is able to make a statistically relevantestimate of the number of acres of variousland use types in an area as small as a mul-tiple-county region.

Understanding theGeographyBecause the NRI is a survey and thus onlyan estimate, it is not statistically relevant atthe county level. Groups of counties are thesmallest geographical area for which theNRI can accurately portray land use acreages.

For this reason we combined NorthCarolina counties into eleven separategroups in order to investigate land usetrends at a statistically relevant level. Eightof the eleven county groupings are madeup of counties surrounding major metro-politan areas—which we refer to as urbanmetro area counties. The remaining threegroups are the rural counties of the moun-tains, the Piedmont, and the coast. Forexample, when the report mentions Char-lotte, or the Charlotte area, the actual geo-graphic area being referenced is the groupingof Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Meck-lenburg, Rowan, and Union counties, notthe actual geographical city of Charlotte.

The following is a list of the county group-ings and counties included in each group:


Figure 1. County Groupings

The Piedmont Region

Charlotte Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan,Union

Fayetteville Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Robeson

Rocky Mount-Greenville Edgecomb, Nash, Pitt

The Triangle Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Orange, Wake

The Triad Alamance, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford,Randolph, Stokes, Yadkin

Piedmont Rural Surry, Iredell, Cleveland, Rockingham, Caswell,Person, Granville, Vance, Warren, Halifax,Northampton, Lee, Moore, Stanly, Montgomery,Anson, Richmond, Scotland, Sampson, Wayne,Greene, Wilson

Coastal Region

Wilmington-Jacksonville Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender

Coastal Rural Hertford, Gates, Camden, Currutuck, Chowan,Bertie, Martin, Perquimans, Pasquotank, Washington,Tyrrell, Dare, Hyde, Beaufort, Pamlico, Carteret,Craven, Jones, Lenoir, Duplin, Bladen

Mountain Region

Asheville Buncombe, Madison, Henderson

Hickory-Morganton Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba

Mountains Rural Cherokee, Graham, Clay, Macon, Swain, Jackson,Transylvania, Haywood, Polk, Rutherford, Yancey,Mitchell, McDowell, Avery, Watauga, Ashe,Alleghany, Wilkes


Understanding the NumbersThe NRI survey estimates the acreage ofvarious land use types down to the countylevel. Land use is divided into the follow-ing categories: forest, cropland, pasture,federal, water, conservation recovery, ur-ban, rural transportation, and minor landcover.

For the purposes of this report, we havechosen to investigate trends in the threelargest land use categories: forest, cropland,and developed land (which we define asurban land combined with rural transpor-tation). Forest and cropland are the twolargest open space categories surveyed bythe NRI and the two most rapidly decreas-ing land use types. Developed land is thefastest growing land use type.

Our calculations for past changes in acre-age of forest land and cropland are fromthe results of the NRI. To come up withour calculations of changes in developedland, we combined urban land and ruraltransportation land (roads).

Figure 2. Land Use Changes, Urbanvs. Rural, 1987-2007

For example, some cropland and forestland were converted into land use typesother than urban developed land, and viceversa, according to the NRI survey. Forexample, cropland could have been trans-formed into pastureland or minor land uses(light rural development).

Some cropland and forestland may havebeen re-categorized without actually hav-ing changed land uses. For example, if thefederal government purchased land for-merly categorized by the NRI as forest land,and that land is now labeled as federal land,the land itself has probably not been actu-ally converted to another land use.

Thus, our estimates of cropland and for-est land lost include a margin of error. Theerror equals the amount of cropland or for-est land that was re-categorized into otherland use labels without having actuallychanged uses. The error is unavoidablegiven that the data itself does not describewhether the re-categorization was due to achange in actual land use or a change indescription.

The ProjectionsIn order to calculate estimated acreage for2007 and then project changes in acreagethrough 2027, we used census results, cen-sus estimates since 2000, and future censusprojections to calculate land use changesper new resident. While there are multipleways to make projections of future land use,we felt it was important to link those pro-jections to population. We felt any predic-tion of future growth must account for U.S.Census’ projections of rapid populationgrowth in the next two decades, which willbe one of the most important factors in fu-ture development.

For each period between NRI surveys,1982-1987, 1987-1992, and 1992-1997, wecalculated a per-new-resident change inacreage for each of the three major land usecategories—for developed land, cropland,

The total increase in developed acreagedoes not equal the decrease in acreage offorest and cropland, meaning not all forestland and cropland lost has become devel-oped, or not all developed land has takenthe place of cropland or forest land.

1,270,000 1,420,000

590,000 950,000

Increase inDeveloped

Acreage

Decrease inCropland andForest Land

Acreage

UrbanCounties

RuralCounties


and forest land. The period of 1982-1987was a boom period, with much higher ratesof development per new resident andhigher rates of cropland and forest landdecrease per person than 1987-1992 or1992-1997.

To calculate the change in acreage for1997-2007 for each land use category, wemultiplied the change in population be-tween 1997 and 2002 and from 2002 to2007 by the change in acreage per-new-resident from 1992-1997. Because devel-opment rates are based on five-yearintervals, we projected land use changesfrom 2002 to 2007 based on estimated ac-tual population data for 2002 and estimatesfor 2007.

To calculate the projected land usechanges from 2007 through 2027 we mul-tiplied population projections from the U.S.Census by the per-new-resident change inacreage from 1992-1997.3 Because the per-new-resident change in acreage was rela-tively low for 1992-1997 (about 0.7 acres/new resident) compared to 1982-1987 and1987-1992 (about 1.1 and 1.0 acres/newresident, respectively), our land use projec-tions through 2027 are conservative. If thehigher rates of development-per-new-resi-dent and forest/cropland-loss-per-new-resident of the 1980s and early 1990sreturn, then North Carolina’s natural ar-eas could disappear even faster than pro-jected in this report.


Land Use Changes in North Carolina1987-2007

In the last two decades North Carolinahas lost nearly 2.4 million acres of crop-land and forest land. The state has seen

nearly 20 percent of its cropland and 7 per-cent of its vast forest land disappear. Whilemuch of the loss of these open spaces hasbeen concentrated near major urban cen-ters, rural areas of the state, especially thewestern mountains, also lost vast tracts ofopen space to development.

Loss of cropland in the state was moreevident in urban metro-area counties,which lost 720,000 acres compared to ru-ral counties’ loss of 550,000 acres. Urbancounties also lost more forest land than

rural counties: 700,000 acres compared to404,000, respectively.

The disappearance of North Carolina’sfarm and forest land is for the most partthe result of burgeoning development. Alltold, in the last twenty years, developmentland area has increased by 1.86 millionacres, a 65 percent increase.

The majority of development occurredin counties that comprise the metropolitanareas of the state’s largest cities. Between 1987and 2007, these counties added 1.27 millionacres of developed land, an increase of 72 per-cent. Rural counties saw developed land in-crease by 588,000 acres, a 54 percent increase.

Map 1. Percent Loss of Total Crop and Forest Land, 1987-2007

Land Use Changes in North Carolina 15

The PiedmontThe Piedmont region of North Carolinais home to most of the state’s populationand large metropolitan areas. Charlotte, theTriangle (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill),the Triad (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point), Fayetteville, and Greenville-Rocky Mount make up the major urbanmetropolitan areas of the region.

As developed land sprawls out from thePiedmont’s urban centers, open space is dis-appearing at an alarming rate. During thelast twenty years, the Piedmont region has

lost 638,000 acres of forest land and 1 mil-lion acres of cropland, decreases of 8 per-cent and 25 percent, respectively.

The Piedmont’s rapid rate of open spaceloss corresponds with its high rates of de-velopment. The majority of land develop-ment in the state over the previous twentyyears occurred in the Piedmont region.Between 1987 and 2007, the Piedmont de-veloped an additional 1.38 million acres ofland, a 77 percent increase in developedland area.

Map 2. Percent Change in Developed Land Area, 1987-2007

Map 3. Piedmont County Groupings


CharlotteThe counties in the Charlotte metro area,Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg,Rowan, Union, and Alexander comprise thelargest metropolitan area in the state witha population estimated to be 1.58 millionin 2007.

The Charlotte area saw 109,000 acres offarmland and 161,000 acres of forest landdisappear between 1987 and 2007, de-creases of 33 percent and 21 percent, re-spectively.

In the previous twenty years, the Char-lotte metro area also experienced one of thelargest increases in developed land of anyarea in the state. Developed land area in-creased 88 percent with 321,000 additionalacres developed.

The TriangleSimilar to the Charlotte area, the Trianglecounties of Chatham, Durham, Franklin,Johnson, Orange, and Wake developed327,000 acres of land between 1987 and2007. Developed land in the Triangle morethan doubled, the highest percentage in-crease of any area in the state over that time.

Record-setting development rates cor-respond with overwhelming losses of farm-land and forest land in the Triangle.Farmland acreage decreased 58 percent, or283,000 acres; forest land decreased by 10percent since 1987, or 123,000 acres.

The TriadThe Greensboro-Winston Salem-HighPoint metro area counties (Alamance,Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford,Randolph, Stokes, and Yadkin) make up thesecond most populated metro area inpopulation. An estimated 1.36 millionpeople call the area home in 2007.

With a population surge of nearly one-thirdsince 1987, Greensboro has seen similar

development trends to those of Charlotteand the Triangle. Developed land increasedby 60 percent since 1987, more than219,000 acres. During the same period, theGreensboro-Winston Salem-High Pointarea lost a quarter of its cropland, and 10percent of its forest land.

FayettevilleThe Fayetteville metro-area comprises thecounties of Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke,and Robeson. Fayetteville is one of thesmaller metropolitan areas in the Piedmontwith 588,000 people in 2007.

Between 1987 and 2007, the Fayettevillearea lost 50,000 acres of farmland and22,000 acres of forest land. At the sametime, developed land increased 53 percent,an increase of 82,000 acres.

Greenville – Rocky MountThe Greenville-Rocky Mount metro areais the smallest of the major urban areas inthe Piedmont with a population of 293,000in 2007. The area consists of Edgecombe,Nash, and Pitt counties.

Greenville-Rocky Mount lost 81,000acres, or 19 percent of cropland during thesame period. The area lost 9 percent of itsforest land, totaling 44,000 acres.

Greenville-Rocky Mount has seen itsacreage of developed land increase by 80percent in the last twenty years. Developedacreage grew from 94,000 in 1987 to170,000 in 2007.

Piedmont Urban Area TotalsMuch of North Carolina’s increase in de-veloped land area has occurred in andaround the metropolitan areas of the Pied-mont region.

The counties that comprise the metropopulation areas of Charlotte, the Triangle(Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill), the Triad(Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point),Fayetteville, Greenville, and Rocky Mountcontain 59 percent of the state’s population.

Piedmont Urban Metro-AreaCounties


A full 70 percent of the state’s new residentsarriving between 1987 and 2007 are livingin the counties surrounding the Piedmont’smajor cities.

Urban area counties in the Piedmonthave seen enormous losses of open spacein the last twenty years. Forest land hasshrunk by 480,000 acres and cropland hasdropped by 650,000 acres, decreases of 11percent and 29 percent, respectively.

Much of this loss of open space can beattributed to rapid development. Alongwith the population growth of the 1980sand 1990s came intense new developmentaround the Piedmont’s urban areas. Coun-ties that surround the Piedmont’s urbanareas saw an 80 percent increase in devel-oped acreage between 1987 and 2007. Alltold, urban counties in the Piedmont de-veloped 1 million acres from 1987 to 2007.

Piedmont Rural CountiesWhile most new development in the Pied-mont region occurred near the major ur-ban centers, rural counties also saw largepercentage increases in developed landbetween 1987 and 2007. In total, rural

counties of the Piedmont saw developmentincrease 66 percent over that period, a to-tal increase of 322,000 acres.

Correspondingly, Piedmont rural coun-ties lost enormous quantities of open spacefrom 1987 to 2007. 336,000 acres of croplandsdisappeared over that time along with147,000 acres of forest land.

Map 4. Piedmont Rural


Map 5. The Coast

The CoastThe North Carolina coast is famous for itsbeautiful beaches and natural areas, alongwith its historic towns and cities. FromRoanoke Island, the site of the first Englishsettlement in the Americas; Kitty Hawk,where the Wright brothers made theirfamous first flight; and Cape Hatteras, thefirst National Seashore; to the balmy south-ern region around Wilmington, the NorthCarolina coast is rich with historic andecological heritage.

Unfortunately, like the urban areas of thePiedmont, North Carolina’s coast is facingdrastic changes.

Between 1987 and 2007 the coastal coun-ties of North Carolina lost more than 164,000acres of cropland and 262,000 acres ofwoodland. Concurrently, coastal countiesexperienced a 52 percent increase in devel-oped land, or 248,000 acres of development.

Coastal Urban CountiesThe coastal counties around Wilmingtonand Jacksonville (Brunswick, Columbus,New Hanover, Onslow, Pender), the ma-jor cities of the coastal region, have experi-enced substantial growth in the past twodecades.

Wilmington-Jacksonville metro areacounties added 109,000 acres of developedland, a 59 percent increase since 1987. Atthe same time, the area lost 34,000 acres offarmland and 122,000 acres of forest land.

Coastal Rural CountiesThe rural counties of the North Carolinacoast saw a similar transition in land useover the previous twenty years. Acres ofdeveloped land in these counties grew from293,000 acres to 429,000 acres in that timeperiod, an increase of 46 percent.

During the same time, rural coastalcounties experienced a loss of 128,000 acresof cropland and 142,000 acres of forest land.

The MountainsNorth Carolina’s mountain region is hometo some of the most beautiful vistas andhighest peaks east of the Rockies. Millionsof tourists head to the mountains of NorthCarolina each year for rest and relaxation.

But the beauty of the mountains has at-tracted many new people and a great deal ofdevelopment in recent years. From retireesbuilding their dream homes in golf coursecommunities to urbanites from the Pied-mont region building vacation retreats, thewestern mountains of North Carolina havebecome a favorite spot for new homes.

Developed land has increased 44 percentin the mountains in the last two decades,from 591,000 acres to 852,000 acres. Dur-ing the same time, forest land acreage de-creased by 212,000 acres (6 percent) andwere lost.


AshevilleAsheville, the largest city in the westernmountains, is nestled in a picturesque valleyin the southern Appalachians. The moun-tain region’s major population center is afavorite tourist destination for travelers.

Asheville’s heritage and scenic locationhave made it a hot new spot for develop-ment. Asheville’s developed acreage grew56 percent between 1987 and 2007, an in-crease of 60,000 acres. Asheville metro areacounties also lost 28 percent of their crop-land in the last twenty years and 8 percentof their forested land, or 38,000 acres.

Hickory-MorgantonHickory-Morganton, the only other metroarea in the western part of the state, expe-rienced 38 percent growth in developedland. Hickory-Morganton saw 19 percentof its cropland disappear and 10 percent ofits forest land, a total open space loss ofnearly 77,000 acres.

Rural CountiesDevelopment in the mountains occurred atan almost equal rate in urban and ruralcounties, with development increasing 43percent in rural areas and 45 percent inmountain urban counties near Asheville andHickory-Morganton.

Rural mountain counties added 130,000acres of developed land in the previous 20years. Simultaneously, those counties lostnearly half of all cropland, 86,000 acres, and115,000 acres of forest land.

Map 6. The Mountains


Projected Land Use Changes2007-2027

I f today’s patterns of land use transfor-mation continue, North Carolina willlose an additional two million acres of

forest land and cropland by 2027.Land use transformation will be driven

by development. Prodded by a boomingpopulation and low-density developmentprojects, developed land area will increaseby over 1.7 million acres, an increase of38 percent from 2007. (See Understand-ing the Data section for methodology ofprojections.)

Projected Open Space LossRates of open space loss will continue atthe highest rate in the Triangle and Char-lotte areas, followed by the Triad and theRocky-Mount/Greenville. The Trianglewill lose another 37 percent of its crop andforest land; Charlotte will lose 30 percent.The Rocky Mount-Greenville and Triadareas will also lose crop and forest land athigh rates, losing 15 and 14 percent respec-tively by 2027.

Map 7. Projected Percentage Decrease in Total Forest and Cropland, 2007-2027

Projected Land Use Changes 21

Projected Increase inDeveloped LandIn the next twenty years, development willagain increase most rapidly in thePiedmont’s urban areas. The Triangle willbe developed most rapidly, its developedland increasing by 58 percent, followed by

Charlotte at 48 percent and the remainderof the Piedmont’s urban and rural counties.

The western mountains will experiencea development rate of 22 percent from 2007to 2027. The rural mountain counties willsee the lowest increase in developed land(18 percent), but that still means that 76,000acres will be developed.

Figure 3. Open Space Projections by Geography, 2007-2027

Piedmont Total -624,500 -8% -999,400 -34% -1,623,900 -15%

Piedmont All Urban -465,200 -12% -714,600 -45% -1,179,800 22%

Charlotte -142,700 -24% -105,900 -48% -248,600 -30%

Fayetteville -40,200 -5% -39,000 -9% -79,200 -7%

Rocky Mount-Greenville -39,900 -9% -81,200 -23% -121,100 -15%

The Triangle -141,000 -13% -327,800 -159% -468,800 -37%

The Triad -80,500 -7% -126,300 -36% -206,700 -14%

Piedmont Rural -134,500 -4% -237,100 -17% -371,500 -7%

Coastal Total -131,500 -3% -99,100 -5% -230,600 4%

Wilmington-Jacksonville -101,400 -7% -26,800 -9% -128,200 -7%

Coastal Rural -32,600 -1% -66,300 -4% -99,000 -2%

Mountains Total -148,700 -5% -69,100 -31% -217,700 -6%

Mountains All Urban -96,800 -10% -16,200 -13% -113,000 -11%

Asheville -35,100 -8% -16,400 -41% -51,600 -10%

Hickory-Morganton -55,500 -11% -1,600 -2% -57,200 -10%

Mountains Rural -51,600 -2% -45,500 -45% -97,200 -4%

Rural -218,700 -2% -348,900 -11% -567,600 -5%

Urban -663,400 -10% -757,600 -38% -1,421,000 -17%

Total -882,100 -6% -1,106,600 -23% -1,988,700 -10%

ProjectedForestAcresLost

2007-2027

– %Changein Forest

Area2007-2027

ProjectedAcres of

CroplandLost

2007-2027

– %Change inCropland

Area2007-2027

ProjectedAcres of

OpenSpace Lost2007-2027

– %Changein OpenSpace

2007-2027


Map 8. Projected Increase in Developed Land, 2005-2027

Figure 4. Development Projections by County Groupings, 2007-2027

Region Projected Increase % Changein Developed Acres in Developed Area2007-2027 2007-2027

Piedmont Total 1,400,700 44%Piedmont All Urban 1,070,100 46%Charlotte 328,600 48%Fayetteville 81,500 34%Rocky Mount-Greenville 59,400 35%The Triangle 376,500 58%The Triad 195,200 33%Piedmont Rural 282,100 35%

Coastal Total 207,000 28%Wilmington-Jacksonville 97,500 33%Coastal Rural 103,600 24%

Mountains Total 184,800 22%Mountains All Urban 104,600 25%Asheville 48,700 29%Hickory-Morganton 52,300 21%Mountains Rural 76,000 18%

Rural 461,600 28%Urban 1,272,200 42%Total 1,733,900 38%

Projected Land Use Changes 23

Population and Development Rates

R apid population growth and associated development have driven the rapiddegradation of the North Carolina landscape over the last twenty years.However, development is not just a natural byproduct of our rising popula-

tion; while population increased 40 percent between 1987 and 2007, developmentincreased 65 percent.

New sprawling patterns of development mean more open space will disappearin coming years. As sprawling development extends out from the suburbs of oururban areas, new developments are, on average, using up more of our natural ar-eas. New sprawling development is using bigger roads, more parking lots, largerhomes, and more shopping malls.

While development outpaced growth over the last twenty years, the rates ofdevelopment per person in North Carolina appeared to retreat in the mid-1990’s.In the mid-1980’s, land was developed at a rate of 1.13 acres for each new personentering the state; five years later it was 1.0 acre per new resident; and by the mid-1990’s that rate had fallen to 0.65 of an acre per new resident.

The bad news is that despite the apparent decrease in development rates perperson in recent years, census projections for the twenty year period from 2007-2027 predict an increase of a full 30 percent, or 2.7 million people. Thus even withdeclining per-person rates of development, future population growth will virtuallyguarantee that large tracts of land are developed, coinciding with large losses ofopen space.

Figure 5. North Carolina Population Growth Projections

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

11,000,000

12,000,000

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027


In 2006, the North Carolina General Assembly established the Land and WaterConser-vation Study Commission to ex-

amine ways to finance a significant increasein funding for the state’s existing land con-servation programs—the Clean WaterManagement Trust Fund, the NaturalHeritage Trust Fund, the Parks and Rec-reation Trust Fund, and the AgriculturalDevelopment and Farmland PreservationTrust Fund—as well as to fund new initia-tives to capitalize on economic opportuni-ties associated with land conservation.

Policy Findings

After numerous meetings and threepublic hearings, attended by more than1000 citizens, the Commission recom-mended $1 billion—roughly 1 percent ofthe state’s budget—in additional fundsover the next five years for land conserva-tion programs.4

The Commission recommended a num-ber of potential financing mechanisms forthis additional funding, including generalobligation bonds, broad-based taxes, andfees on new development.

This increase in funding, if approved bystate leaders, can ensure the protection ofadditional 260,000 acres of forests, farm-lands, trails, parks, gamelands, and othernatural areas, and more than 6000 miles ofriver and stream buffers across the state.5The recommendations of the Land andWater Conservation Study Commission, ifadopted, would go a long way towards pro-tecting the state’s natural areas in the faceof rapid development.

Appendices 25

Figure 6: Data for Change in Developed Area by Study Area, 1987-2007

Appendix A

Piedmont Total 1784800 3161900 1,377,100 77%Piedmont All Urban 1298700 2334500 1,035,800 80%Charlotte 364900 685400 320,500 88%Fayetteville 154400 236300 81,900 53%Rocky Mount-Greenville 94200 169700 75,500 80%The Triangle 320600 647100 326,500 102%The Triad 364600 583800 219,200 60%Piedmont Rural 486100 808500 322,400 66%

Coastal Total 478700 726700 248,000 52%Wilmington-Jacksonville 185300 294600 109,300 59%Coastal Rural 293400 428700 135,300 46%

Mountains Total 591100 851500 260,400 44%Mountains All Urban 287600 416700 129,100 45%Asheville 106900 166600 59,700 56%Hickory-Morganton 180700 248600 67,900 38%Mountains Rural 303500 433800 130,300 43%

Rural Total 1,083,000 1,671,000 588,000 54%Urban Total 1,771,600 3,045,800 1,274,200 72%State Total 2,854,600 4,716,800 1,862,200 65%

1987DevelopedLand Area

2007DevelopedLand Area

Total AcresDeveloped1987-2007

% Change inDeveloped

Area


Appendix B

Figure 7: Data for Projected Loss of Open Space by Study Area, 1987-2007

Pied

mo

nt

Tota

l3,

957,

400

2,95

1,70

0-1

,005

,700

-25%

8,34

5,50

07,

707,

600

-637

,900

-8%

Pied

mon

t A

ll U

rban

2,22

2,90

01,

572,

100

-650

,800

-29%

4,39

3,60

03,

912,

700

-480

,900

-11%

Cha

rlott

e33

2,40

022

2,60

0-1

09,8

00-3

3%76

2,30

060

0,80

0-16

1,50

0-2

1%

Faye

ttev

ille

507,

200

457,

500

-49,

700

-10%

761,

400

738,

900

-22,

500

-3%

Rock

y M

ount

-Gre

envi

lle43

2,50

035

1,10

0-8

1,40

0-1

9%48

7,40

044

3,10

0-4

4,30

0-9

%

The

Tria

ngle

489,

300

206,

600

-282

,700

-58%

1,17

4,50

01,

051,

400

-123

,100

-10%

The

Tria

d46

1,50

034

7,10

0-1

14,4

00-2

5%1,

208,

000

1,08

6,90

0-1

21,1

00-1

0%

Pied

mon

t Ru

ral

1,73

4,50

01,

398,

300

-336

,200

-19%

3,95

1,90

03,

804,

500

-147

,400

-4%

Co

asta

l To

tal

2,05

7,20

01,

892,

400

-164

,800

-8%

4,89

6,70

04,

633,

800

-262

,900

-5%

Wilm

ingt

on-J

acks

onvi

lle32

0,10

028

6,50

0-3

3,60

0-1

0%1,

656,

600

1,53

4,40

0-1

22,2

00-7

%

Coa

stal

Rur

al1,

737,

100

1,60

9,30

0-1

27,8

00-7

%3,

240,

100

3,09

8,00

0-1

42,1

00-4

%

Mo

unta

ins

Tota

l34

9,60

022

6,20

0-1

23,4

00-3

5%3,

377,

200

3,16

5,60

0-2

11,6

00-6

%

Mou

ntai

ns A

ll U

rban

162,

900

127,

500

-35,

400

-22%

1,03

5,10

093

8,20

0-9

6,90

0-9

%

Ash

evill

e56

,100

40,2

00-1

5,90

0-2

8%49

0,10

045

2,50

0-3

7,60

0-8

%

Hic

kory

-Mor

gant

on10

6,80

086

,600

-20,

200

-19%

545,

000

488,

200

-56,

800

-10%

Mou

ntai

ns R

ural

186,

700

100,

400

-86,

300

-46%

2,34

2,10

02,

227,

400

-114

,700

-5%

Rura

l3,

658,

300

3,10

8,00

0-5

50,3

00-1

5%9,

534,

100

9,12

9,80

0-4

04,3

00-4

%

Urb

an27

0590

01,

986,

100

-719

,800

-27%

7,08

5,30

06,

385,

400

-699

,900

-10%

Tota

l63

6420

05,

094,

100

-1,2

70,1

00-2

0%16

,619

,400

15,5

15,2

00-1

,104

,200

-7%

1987

Cro

pla

nd

Are

a

2007

Cro

pla

nd

Are

a

Tota

lC

rop

lan

dLo

st19

87-2

007

Perc

ent

Chan

gein

Crop

land

Area

1987

Fore

st L

and

Are

a

Tota

lFo

rest

Lan

d L

ost

1987

-200

7

2007

Fore

st L

and

Are

a

Perc

ent

Chan

gein

Fore

stAr

ea

Appendices 27

Appendix C

Figure 8a and 8b. Ranks of Study Areas by Projected Open Space Loss 2007-2027

Region Acres Lost

The Triangle -327800 -159%Charlotte -105900 -48%Mountains Rural -45500 -45%Asheville -16400 -41%The Triad -126300 -36%Rocky Mount-Greenville -81200 -23%Piedmont Rural -237100 -17%Wilmington-Jacksonville -26800 -9%Fayetteville -39000 -9%Coastal Rural -66300 -4%Hickory-Morganton -1600 -2%

% Change inCrop Land

AreaRegion Acres Lost

Charlotte -142,700 -24%The Triangle -141,000 -13%Hickory-Morganton -55,500 -11%Rocky Mount-Greenville -39,900 -9%Asheville -35,100 -8%The Triad -80,500 -7%Wilmington-Jacksonville -101,400 -7%Fayetteville -40,200 -5%Piedmont Rural -134,500 -4%Mountains Rural -51,600 -2%Coastal Rural -32,600 -1%

% Change inForestLand

AcresRegion Developed

The Triangle 376,500 58%Charlotte 328,600 48%Rocky Mount-Greenville 59,400 35%Piedmont Rural 282,100 35%Fayetteville 81,500 34%The Triad 195,200 33%Wilmington-Jacksonville 97,500 33%Asheville 48,700 29%Coastal Rural 103,600 24%Hickory-Morganton 52,300 21%Mountains Rural 76,000 18%

% Increasein Developed

Areas

Figure 8c. Ranks of Study Areas by Increase in Development 2007-2027.


Endnotes

1. “The point is, it’ll be preserved,” Wilmington Star-News, November 20, 2006.

2. The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Chapter, downloaded March 27, 2007 at http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northcarolina/help/art5907.html

3. This report was originally published in 2003 by NCPIRG Education Fund. The projected numbersfor 2002 in that report were based on 2002 population estimates. Those estimates have subsequentlybeen corrected using new projections released in June 2006. All figures and charts have been revisedusing the latest population estimates, revising the numbers slightly downward.

4. Joint Legislative Committee on Land and Water Conservation, Report to the 2007 General Assem-bly of North Carolina, available at http://www.ncleg.net/LegLibrary/

5. Land for Tomorrow, “Saving the Goodliest Land: A Five-Year Plan for Investing in North Carolina’s Land,Water, History and Future,” June 2005, available at www.landfortomorrow.org.

losing our natural heritage - environment north carolina€¦ · 12 losing our natural heritage:...

Documents